Performs a long press at specified screen coordinates on Android or iOS simulators to trigger context menus or extended interactions.
Long press at specific screen coordinates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | X coordinate | |
| y | Yes | Y coordinate | |
| device_id | No | Target device ID. If omitted, uses the default device. | |
| duration_ms | No | Duration of the long press in milliseconds (default: 1000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action, not effects like whether it blocks until the press completes, if it requires a visible element, or if it could fail. The agent has no information about side effects, system behavior, or postconditions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and object concisely, and each word earns its place. It could not be meaningfully shorter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple action with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits any context about when to choose this over sibling gestures, and the lack of annotations leaves safety and side-effect behavior entirely unaddressed. Given the many sibling tools, a bit more context would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond emphasizing 'specific screen coordinates,' which is already clear from the parameter names. Baseline of 3 applies because the structured schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Long press at specific screen coordinates' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the gesture and where it applies. It distinguishes from siblings like tap_xy and swipe because 'long press' implies a different duration and behavior, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as tap_xy, swipe, or press_key. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.